Are you a clod?

Is there anything about which you are unsympathetic or uncaring? For example, an issue,�stereotype category of people or political agenda?

To give an example, I really don't like people who drive under the speed limit. I know that in saying "limit" it means that that is the maximum allowable speed, but I like to go 5-10 miles above the speed limit so I have a really hard time going 5-10 miles BELOW the speed limit, especially on roads I know well and drive all the time. It is a growing experience to keep a decent following distance and not tailgate them, but I work at it.

The basic rules are:

• Anyone that drives slower than you is an idiot.
• Anyone that drives faster than you is insane.

Bahaha.

It's funny 'cause it's so true.

I drove home in pretty heavy snow tonight, so visibility sucked, and a few people were going way faster than I was, and I thought of them as reckless, and the people in front of me who made me slow down were ridiculously over-cautions. Heh.

kind of like, anyone who goes to more concerts than you do is a freak, while anyone who goes to fewer concerts isn't a real fan. :)

There are people that go to more concerts than me? They must be total freaks.

I'm going to make a t-shirt for myself that reads, "WARNING! Not a real fan!"

amen.

Especially people who LIVE IN NEW ENGLAND... and drive slow when there is just a DUSTING OF SNOW.
:P

christ, people... did you just move to this climate yesterday?

if there are dry pavement wheel tracks, drive like you normally would!

Not in my car... I should have replaced the tires two years ago. I drive like an old lady when the snow starts flying.� It's really odd, because, most times, I drive like a bat out of Hell.

Once there's three or four inches on the ground, I drive normally.� The ruts will keep me on the road. :-)

besides "bad" drivers, I also have a hard time withpeople who spin things funny, for example, using the term 'anti-abortion' instead of 'pro-life'. yet the other side of the aisle is 'pro-choice' never 'anti-life'. It just annoys me because it's not impartial, but puts an automatic judgement value on the terms. Obviously, being 'pro' something is viewed better than being 'anti' something.

Another tough one, since I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice.� Meaning that I'd never have one (given) or encourage one, but I'm not for taking the option away from people who have to make the decision.

I'm actually annoyed that the pro-lifers aren't calling themselves 'anti-choice.'� It seems appropriate.

I'm more annoyed that the 'pro-life' people who insist on creating a 'culture of life' are also some of the strongest supporters of both capital punishment and the Iraq war.

culture of life, indeed.

Exactly! have you ever tried to debate these people? they are insane! my friend has this "google group" called political paridise, and it's where you basically discuss issues with people. It is so frustrating to be debating the morality of the Iraq war one minute, and the morality of abortion the next, with the same person. They argue that pro-life is only protecting innocent lives, and that the people who are in Iraq are there because they enlisted.

Hi, thank you for calling myself and several other fhdc members insane, nice to meet you too.

of all, save one, of the debates i have ever been a part of on the issue, it was the other party who became beligerent, or mean, or started yelling or turned things personal. the one was when i was nicely disussing the issue with a friend, it was a really good debate, and two other girls i knew came and started talking over me, shooting question after question, and saying "you can't answer that can you?" when they hadn't given me a chance to respond, and yes. i lost my cool.



back to the main concept of the thread. i have very little tolerence for terms such as "those people"

edit: hrm, on a second look, perhaps that comment is not directed at all pro-lifers... in which case, sorry, i read it wrong.

*hugs*

hee, don't worry, i'm used to it ;)

I know, I was just looking for an excuse to hug you.

o.O

oh. okay then *hugsback*

nice to meeet you too! I didn't mean to call you insane, and I am sorry for using the words "these people" because that was insensitive of me. However, the comments were not directed at pro-lifers, they were more of a rant/comments directed at people who are trying so hard to be loyal to their political party that they forget that isn't the point. People in the media, etc. are twisting facts so that everything fits the stereotypical profile of the views of a republican or democrat so much that none of their arguments make a lot of sense. The bipartisan system really isn't working too well because of this. Also, just a suggestion, anyone who wants to discuss any issue in a civilized manner can go to
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Political-Paridise
this is a forum owned my a friend of mine, one who intruduced me to fr�vous. he's very fair and doesn't let things get out of hand at all. most posters bring very good points to the discussion, and it makes for difficult, yet enjoyable debate most of the time.

> Exactly! have you ever tried to debate these people? they are insane!
> my friend has this "google group" called political paridise, and it's where
> you basically discuss issues with people. It is so frustrating to be debating
> the morality of the Iraq war one minute, and the morality of abortion the
> next, with the same person. They argue that pro-life is only protecting
> innocent lives, and that the people who are in Iraq are there because they
> enlisted.

If any of you want to join my politics group, go here.

If it is inconsistent to be anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, how is it consistent to be anti-death penalty and pro-abortion?

As someone is IS pro-life, there is just as much inconsistency on the other side of the coin.

To refer to the poll about images of war in the media, all of those people who thought it is neccessary to show people the truth, how many of you are against the abortion images (GAP project)?

It is consistent to be pro-abortion and anti-death penalty, but only if you use those words! Pro-choice is different. OK, i may be grabbing at straws here, but it is a point. the following is something i posted a while ago, the site i mentioned above:
I don't think abortions are good. Killing is never a good thing. But
sometimes there are circumstances where a woman should be given a
choice. Because if they aren't responsible or well equipped enough to
give the child a good life, then they have a large chance of either:
-Moving from foster home to foster home, and being abused/neglected
their whole life.
-Being abandoned shortly after birth and freezing or starving to death.
-Being forced to live on the street, and also eventually starving or
freezing or being murdered in an urban area.
Also, about the soldiers:
Pro-Life means all lives, not just unborn children. So if you care a
lot about lives, why are you sending people's "babies" to death?
Everyone is someone's child.
there are inconsistencies on both sides, and i will truthfully admit that. I don't think that is right.

it is either okay to kill unwanted people, or it is not okay to kill unwanted people.

even if you use the term "pro-choice", that term means that it is okay for the pregnant woman to terminant the life of the human fetus if she does not want it. period. the reason doesn't matter.

it means that it should be legally okay to terminant undesirable human lives.

see, that's where i'm on the fence. There should be some kind of reason, because mindless killing is wrong, I agree with you on that point. However, I don't see why it can only be a law if it totally bans or totally allows abortion. Is there some sort of reason why this is? Couldn't there be a law that abolishes abortions only when the mother has no reason whatsoever that their pregnancy must be terminated? I know everyone's gonna say, "Well then, who decides what is a valid reason?" because that's what happens whenever I use this argument. But there could be a court hearing, or any number of other solutions to that problem. This may be sort of a pipe deam, especially seeing how for some reason there can only be totally for or totally against, but I'm just stating the reason behind what I'm trying to say.

The problem is that even if abortions are illegal, they'll still happen.� The technology exists, we'd be stupid to pretend that it doesn't.� If hospitals and clinics were banned from performing the procedure, then they wouldn't happen in hospitals or clinics.� If a hearing is required, people could perjure themselves to influence the outcome.� If a ruling is made against them, they could still find a way to get it done.

There is no perfect system because people are imperfect.

Exactly.
When they were illegal, they still happened... it's just that a lot more people got injured or died.

I cannot understand how this is still even a question.... everyone has a right to decide for themself what they want to have happen to their own body.
If people make that decision illegal, then it'll still be made... just dangerously and in secrecy.

I think it's because a lot of people who want to outlaw it view children as punishment for the 'sin' of having sex for a purpose other than procreation, even though they'd never come out and say it.

that may be, but I'd like to think that's not the case amongst the members of this community.

children should never be viewed as a punishment.

especially because they aren't (spoken as a single mom)

yes, I'd imagine that's not the view here.

it's probably more along the lines of Falwell and Robertson - after all, they also had the audacity to blame the terrorist attacks of September 11 on the ACLU, feminists, homosexuals, and abortionists. I wouldn't put it past them to view children as punishment, either.

yes, well, I'd hardly equate ANY member of this community with that lot. :P

So I'd respectfully submit that perhaps it was an odious comparison.

You lost your arguement when you used the term 'pro-abortion'. Tell it to someone who will buy into your rhetoric, because I won't.

ok, sorry. i was doing two things at once, this and an english narrative. and i know that was a very hypocritical mistake to make. But besides that, can you see where i'm coming from?

nono, not you... you used the terms correctly, and basically wrote the same thing I did, just... more eloquently and probably more politely. I was actually responding to the same post you were. :)

I just have little patience and tolerance for those who simply parrot polarising rhetoric to attempt to villify their opponents, rather than actually understand their point of view.

OK, thanks for clearing that up...

PS-you were pretty eloquent yourself in that last phrase. :)

You lost your arguement when you used the term 'pro-abortion'.

I can't think of anyone who is "pro-abortion". It is never the best choice. But it is a choice that should remain available.

We do not live in an ideal world.

......

This is vaguely off-topic, but I've been reading a lot of propagandistic bullshit about "abortion survivor syndrome".

By all accounts, I count as an abortion survivor. I simply cannot understand how I'm supposed to be traumatized.

i can, she wears a little golden hanger as a pendent around her neck :)

now isn't that beautiful imagery.

dood.

i also said, "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-life".

if you look at the statements, i set them up specifically so that they were phrased as similarly as possible.

if i had said "pro-life" and "pro-abortion" you might have a point.

um. but.

you don't.

But 'pro-abortion' is meaningless. There certainly is not a 'pro-abortion' movement, if there is even, in fact, anyone who is pro-abortion. And you'll also note that my initial statement was about people who call themselves 'pro-life', not 'anti-abortion'.

It is not inconsistent to call yourself anti-abortion and pro-capital punshment. There's no contradiction there. But pro-life and pro-capital punishment? Definite conflict. The difference is that abortion itself has nothing to do with capital punishment. But the term 'life' is much broader than just the lives of fetuses.

The problem is that by trying to reduce it to a black and white issue, the neutral terminology is lost. pro-choice and anti-abortion are not opposites, nor are they mutually exclusive. More accurate terms would probably be 'pro-keeping-abortion-legal' and 'anti-keeping-abortion-legal'. Very specific. Hard to misconstrue. Hard to spin. That's why they aren't used.

So rhetoric aside, is abortion personal conduct that should be protected, or conduct that infringes on the rights of others, and so should be regulated?

I like that question, but I don't think anyone could answer it without the rhetoric.� I've never looked at abortion from a civil rights perspective.

Since nobody has, I think you're right.

To refer to the poll about images of war in the media, all of those people who thought it is neccessary to show people the truth, how many of you are against the abortion images (GAP project)?

Only if I can take you to a juvenile psychiatric ward or residential facility.

you could, but i've already been to both.

then you understand my point.

No, the inconsistency is in claiming to be "pro-life" and THEN supporting the death penalty. If someone claimed to be merely "anti-abortion" there would be no inconsistency. People who make this point are upset at the anti-abortion people co-opting the term "pro-life" which clearly many of them are not. I have no problem with someone being anti-abortion, but I get pissed off when they claim to be "pro-life" while supporting a culture of death in many ways, and also implying that *I* must therefore be "ANTI-Life" because I am "Pro-choice".

Of all the pro- and anti- labels used in this debate, "pro-life" is the only one that is really wildly innaccurate and a blatant attempt at propaganda.

Of all the pro- and anti- labels used in this debate, "pro-life" is the only one that is really wildly innaccurate and a blatant attempt at propaganda.

Yeah, there I totally agree.

I mean, for christ's sake.... who the hell ISN'T pro LIFE.

I'm a very large fan of life... but ... I fully support a woman's right to choose what happens to her body.

well, so is 'pro-abortion'. it's even more inaccurate, since I'm sure there are quite a few people who truly are 'pro-life' in all senses of the term, but very few, if any, who are truly 'pro-abortion'.

the only accurate terms are really the most specific - 'anti-abortion', 'pro-choice', 'anti-choice'. it's hard to turn any of those into something they're not (although to be fair, 'choice' shouldn't only refer to abortion anyway - I call myself 'pro-choice' and basically believe that anything that doesn't directly harm or financially damage another person should be legal for individuals - gambling, prostitution, etc. all those controversial things :)

Yeah, but I didn't count that one, because nobody really claims to be "pro-abortion" so it isn't really relevant. Yes you create spin when you call someone else "pro-abortion" but this doesn't happen that often, because most people realize that "pro-abortion" is kind of non-sensical (except in the the case of the people who want mankind to die out--they really ARE pro-abortion)

I've never actually thought about it that way, but seeing what you've written, I realize the specificity of the terminology in a new way. Thanks for clarifying that Lawrence.

i am pro-life, i am not anti-choice.

i just believe that you make your choice earlier when you partake in actions that may or may not lead to the creation of another human life.

as for so-called "pro-choice" what happens to the choice of the man. ALL of his choices are taken away.

girl gets pregnant, here are some possibilities.
1. they both want the child.
2. neither wants the child.
3. she wants the baby, he doesn't--he must pay child support regardless--he has no choice. his choice was made when he took part in sexual relations.
4. she doesn't want the baby, he does. he has no rights and no choice.

now there's an inconsistancy.

wow, a female misogynist! standing up for the 'rights' of the man to tell his woman what she can and can't do!

a woman wants to chop her arm off. no one else has rights or a choice - just as if a man wanted to chop his arm off, no one else, male or female could tell him what to do.

if a woman wants to remove a small mass of cells from her body, it is no place of anyone else to tell her she can't or shouldn't.

but if she doesn't want to, should he be responsible for it?

it may not be his place to tell her she can't or shouldn't, but then how can you say that he should be responsible for supporting that mass of cells when it is no longer attached to her body?

i'm not saying that a man should or shouldn't be allowed to "tell his woman what to do" and thank you for entirely missing the point. you're so good at that, lawrence.

if he has no say in the matter, if it has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH HIM. if it is NOT HIS DECISION.

those are valid points, however with that in mind.
if it is not his place to say anything about it, how is it his place to provide for her and child in the aftermath of her decision?

do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

I'm good at that? I'm good at that? You should make a career out of it! You only see what you want to see, and only argue against the points that you want to believe other people are making, whether they actually are or not. You are absolutely NOT one to talk about missing people's points.

if I crash into your car, does my insurance have to pay for the damage? Yes. Do I have any say at all in whether or not you buy a new car, what kind of car you get, whether or not your wrecked car goes to the junkyard or gets repaired? No, I do not.

This has gone beyond hostile general debate and into personal attacks. I'd recommend either taking it offline if you really want to debate it, or just backing down altogether.

(I'm not specifically talking only to lawrence, but appending my comment to the most recent in that vein)

Sorry if I'm out of line to suggest that but it's getting insulting to specific people.

i just believe that you make your choice earlier when you partake in actions that may or may not lead to the creation of another human life

Taking that as much as I can in the context of this pro-life/pro-choice discussion...

What about rape?

(Incidentally - and this reply may not be the place to make this comment - I am socially pro-choice, personally pro-life. That is to say, I believe in another woman's right to choose, but at the same time I know that I can forsee few or no sets of circumstances wherein I would be able to make the choice for abortion myself.)

his choice was made when he took part in sexual relations.

I think that most people understand that there are several outcomes for a given course of action.� There are steps to take to prevent pregnancy or encourage conception.� A man's choices aren't removed, they're exercised.� Abstinence is a choice.

If he wants a child,�he would choose a partner that wants a child.� If he doesn't want a child, he wouldn't choose a partner that did.��Men should�understand the preventative measures and know that conception is possible if they fail (or even if they succeed). If a child is conceived and she decides to keep it,�he DOES have a choice to pay or not pay child support.� He may have a legal obligation, but the choice is still�his to make.

but see, that's where there's a problem.

she also understands the potential ramifications of sex.
a woman also has access to contraception. a woman should have to understand the preventative measures as well.

yes, a man has a "choice" to pay or not pay, though he is legally obligated.

however, why is there then no equivilant legal obligation for a woman?

she isn't legally obligated to anything, and yet her actions in the situation were entirely equal.

Yes, women and men share equal responsibility for their actions.� Both should (and most often do) know the ramifications.

Her actions are a little different.� Carrying a child to term leaves a woman with a responsibility to care for the child or ensure its care.� If she decides to keep the baby, he's obligated to assist in its care (personally or financially).� If she decides not to keep the baby, she's responsible for arranging for care, either with the birth father or through adoption.� Is she obligated to financially assist in the baby's care if it stays with the birth father?� Morally, maybe.� Legally, I don't think so, but I can't readily recall any instance where that was an issue. If it was, I doubt he'd push for it.

and yet you use your bad science to discourage the use of the most effective form of contraception.

get real, renita.

Um. Where is she doing this? Unless you're deciding she stands for the whole movement or the whole catholic church or did I miss something entirely?

ETA: Unless you're calling abortion the most effective form of contraception...because....no.

no. she has insisted in the past that birth control pills are abortifacent. this simply isn't true and it is a dangerous assertion.

Well it would have been helpful to have a conext for it when you say it because not everyone here was privy to past discussions and it's confusing when there's just a scornful tangental comment and no context.

Unless it was only brought up to take a shot at Renita, not actually further the discussion...in which case...I've already said my piece about personal attacks.

I phrased what I said wrong. As usual. You'd have think I'd have learned by now.

Bad science bothers me and hurts everyone involved.

Main Entry: con�cep�tion
Pronunciation: k&n-'sep-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English concepcioun, from Old French conception, from Latin conception-, conceptio, from concipere
1 a (1) : the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both (2) : EMBRYO, FETUS b : BEGINNING

Main Entry: 1con�tra
Pronunciation: 'k�n-tr&
Function: preposition
Etymology: Latin
1 : AGAINST -- used chiefly in the phrase pro and contra

birthcontrol prevents the one half of conception, but not the other.

half of the job of birth control is to prevent the implantation, it only discourages fertilization. therefore it prevents the natural development of a conceived being. hence. abortificant.

there is no bad science there, leah. only a disagreement over where a human life actually begins and is considered to have value.

the birth control pill that is most commonly used prevents ovulation, which, in turn, prevents fertilisation.

barrier methods prevent the sperm from reaching the egg, again, preventing fertilisation.

spermicides prevent sperm from reaching the egg alive - that, too, prevents fertilisation.

so yes, it is bad science to claim that contraception is on the same level as abortion.

thank you.

okay woah. clarification here!

i have nothing against barrier methods or spermicides.

you prevent feritilization and there's no problem.

not ALL contraception is on the same level as abortion.

birth control pills are not failsafe in preventing ovulation, hence, women become pregnant. the failure rates of all birthcontrol are based on failure when the form of birthcontrol is being used properly. so even when a woman is using birth control perfectly, it is possible to become pregnant.

however, birthcontrol pills also have the effect of thinning the wall of the uterus. this discourages implantation.

however, as birthcontrol pills when used properly allows for feritilization and subsequent flushing of a fertilized egg, yes, they do act as an abortificant.

The morning after pill is little more than an increased dosage to discourage implantation, as it's too late to do anything to do anything about the conception.

however, prevention of implantation is not the intended use of birth control pills. their purpose is to prevent ovulation. the thinning of the uterine wall is a side effect.

side effect or not, that does strike me as a matter of concern to those who want to prevent conception, but not necessarily create an inhospitable environment for an already fertilized egg.

splitting hairs? yes. but that's what this whole debate centers on -- when is it life, when is it human, when is it viable, when is it a being with distinct rights from the possessor of the womb it inhabits.

each person draws that line in a different place, and it's not a doctor's place to draw the line for his/her patient. so before being prescribed a pill, women should be apprised of this and other side effects and what it means for a possible fertilized ovum -- along with the likelihood of an ovum reaching maturity and being fertilized when taking that particular pill as directed. then they can make an informed decision in line with their own ethics -- where they draw the line in terms of not wanting to be pregnant. they can't make that decision if they don't understand how the pills work.

i see no problem at all in educating patients about the details of how their medications work systemically, and how they might fail or have their effects compromised by other drugs or improper dosing. that goes for antihistamines, that goes for anti-inflammatories -- and that goes for birth control.

ah, true about informing and educating patients. that's a good point.

the main reason I brought it up was to set up the idea that, say, alcohol's intended effect is also not the prevention of implantation, but it can cause it, and yet you don't hear people clamouring for laws against women drinking alcohol because it might possibly cause a fertilised egg to fail to implant.

of course, women wanting to conceive are (or should be) informed of the dangers of drinking to pregnancy. but the point of the analogy was more to point out that trying to claim that birth control pills are abortifacient is like making the same claim about alcoholic drinks.

> you don't hear people clamouring for laws against women drinking alcohol because it might possibly cause a fertilised egg to fail to implant.

no, but women have been prosecuted and convicted in some states for drinking and/or using illegal drugs while pregnant. which to me seems part of the same slippery slope of considering the rights of a fetus to have primacy over those of the woman (potentially) carrying it.

i once went to a doctor for a consultation, who would not prescribe me a particular medication for a chronic condition -- not because of any risk factor to me, but because I was of reproductive age. He didn't care that I was using birth control at the time. He didn't care that my one child had been planned. He didn't care that the medication had no known lasting effects on either future fertility or birth defects in a child conceived after treatment was terminated. He just cared about damage to a potential fetus I was taking active steps not to bring into existence.

I never went back to him, needless to say, since he preferred safeguarding a nonexistent being to improving the health of a real one.

when used properly, ovulation only occurs at the cessation of the course of pills.

where are you getting this information?

no. you are sorely mistaken on how oral contraceptives work.

as long as you continue to take the pill, you do not ovulate. the only reason there's the placebo week is for psychological reasons.

Ignorance of the facts has seldom been a determining factor in decisions made on religious bases

well ...

Preventing possible implantation of a fertilized egg IS how RU-486 (the "morning-after" pill) works. But RU-486 is NOT "the pill" that is used daily by women who are "on" the pill. It is an emergency measure, not a standard method of contraception.

Speaking as a woman whose fertilized eggs steadfastly refuse to implant (infertility due to hormonal imbalance), I have a great deal of trouble thinking of a fertilized egg, by itself, as a separate human life, or by its existence immediately signifying pregnancy, because it is completely unsupportable without the implantation. It is not even detectable by ordinary pregnancy tests. To me -- without putting it under a microscope -- that clot of cell matter is indistinguishable from the rest of the uterine lining that is sloughed off every cycle if implantation doesn't take place. Or maybe that's just my method of defending myself from having to mourn not only infertility but also, literally, dozens of these pre-implantation "miscarriages" -- which is what they would be if fertilization alone = pregnancy.

I can see how others would argue that intentionally prevented implantation would be the earliest possible form of "abortion", but to me that argument seems to conflate prevention and disposal. And while some religions' position is that prevention is likewise wrong, (so ova should not be prevented from ripening and releasing, and sperm should not be prevented by an artificial barrier from inseminating an ovum, or killed by a spermicidal agent), it is my impression that for the purposes of this discussion, pre-fertilization contraception is not being equated with abortion.

As for abortion, I would love to see it remain a safe and legal option -- that is never, ever exercised except in medical emergency. I do think that if women of all classes, in all circumstances, had society's support for their pregnancies and for their families after the pregnancies came to term; if all adolescents/young adults had access to quality, uncensored reproductive health education before they became sexually active, so that they had power over their bodies other than basic denial of their sexual nature; if the same education imparted the knowledge that children can be planned for, and not simply random occurrences; if society were restructured so that children -- especially unplanned ones -- are not an automatic economic and social burden, a barrier to self-fulfillment, or even worse a stigmatic proof of "bad behavior"; abortion would not be the trigger issue it is. And its incidence in the US, under a socially conservative president who doesn't think sex ed should be taught in public schools, wouldn't be increasing.

But -- getting back to the initial question -- I recognize that a lot of the above reflects my "beliefs" or "values" instead of science. So I'm not particularly intolerant of those whose beliefs differ -- so long as they recognize they *are* beliefs and should not hold legal or other undue sway over other people's lives. That's where I differ with the politically active religious right (edit: including many in the anti-abortion movement) -- not over what they believe or how they choose to lead their own lives, but over the repressive influence they are attempting to wield on public policy, (edit: on science and medicine and the free flow of ideas), and on those who believe differently.

RU-486/Mifepristone/Mifeprex (three names for the same thing) is an abortifacient. It will end an established, implanted pregnancy. Emergency contraception contains the same hormones in birth control pills, and works primarily by inhibiting ovulation.

thanks for clarifying that point. i didn't know RU-486 acted to abort an implanted pregnancy.

i know someone else already addressed this partially but...

RU 486 and the "morning after pill" are TOTALLY different things.

RU 486 is an abortificant, and basically causes extreme contractions forcing everything in the uterus to be expelled. it is also very dangerous for women, and at the risk of starting a separate arguement, on the basis of health risks to the woman alone, i am opposed.

the morning after pill is an increased dosage of the same ingredients in regular birth control. this prevents implantation.

Mifepristone (8 deaths/million uses[1]) is far safer than something like Viagra (31 deaths/million prescriptions[2]). In fact surgical abortion (10 deaths/million procedures[3]) is a lot safer than delivery (80 deaths/million procedures in the US[4])

[1] http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr12-07-04.cfm
[2] http://www.drugintel.com/drugs/viagra.htm
[3] http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/140/8/620
[4] http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/usa_statistics.html

I thought surgical abortion had a one death per procedure ratio

To clarify the facts: I am a certified nurse-midwife working in reproductive health, and have been involved in research involving both of these medications.

Mifepristone, AKA RU 486, is an abortifacient. It ends a pregnancy. It is taken in conjunction with other medications which cause uterine cramping which cause the pregnancy to be expelled from the uterus, in a fashion similar to a miscarriage. It has been shown to be *extremely* safe for women to use in over a million uses internationally.

Emergency Contraception, AKA "the morning after pill" works primarily by inhibiting ovulation. Prevention of implantation is a theoretical mechanism of action which has not been demonstrated empirically, and based on the best research, is believed to be an unlikely effect of taking these medications.

The folks opposed to the use of emergency contraception have taken hold of the idea that it may prevent implantation and really chosen to focus on this, despite the paucity of evidence for this mechanism of action. These arguments are not grounded in demonstrable facts.

It is not my intention to participate in the argument here, but it is near impossible for me to read such mistruths without clarifying the facts. I welcome you to come to the conclusions which you choose, but I invite you to at least use good information on the way.

But see, you have just hilighted the problem with the anti-abortion argument (really the anti-keeping abortion legal argument). YOU may believe that human life begins at the moment the sperm joins with the egg, but lots and lots of other intelligent thoughtfull people think that is nonsense. If you believe that, it is entirely appropriate for you to eschew hormonal birth control (as well as abortion proceedures) because of the potential destruction of what you consider to be human life) but when so many many other people vehemently disagree with your definition of human life, how can you even consider trying to impose your views on them through legal sanction?

It just annoys me because it's not impartial, but puts an automatic judgement value on the terms. Obviously, being 'pro' something is viewed better than being 'anti' something.
I agree that using the prefices "pro-" and "anti-" can be a powerful way to convey a message - that's the point of spin. The best spin is the kind that nobody notices - that's how all-encompassing it is. I believe that the US legislation known as "The Patriot Act" is a prime example of spin - to not support it would be Unpatriotic!

But I do disagree that "pro-" itself is a more positive description than "anti-". In the continuing conflict over beliefs about abortion, they may have these connotations. But that's a battle that has been very close to people's emotions, and both phrases have been sharpened to use either as weapons against the other side.

Sometimes the difference is the other way around: Pro-disarmament, Anti-Arms Race, Anti-disarmament; Pro-Arms-Race. In the first pair, I'd say the value is fairly equal. In the second, I'd say the "anti-" word is the better one.

And sometimes, there's really no difference. I'm Pro-Longer-Turns-In-The-Shower. That means I'm Anti-Current-Length-of-Turns-In-The-Shower. Eh... not a biggie.

I'm actually going to respond to my own post here. I wrote it as kind of a test - to see if anyone was interested in what the original posed arguement was. Here was the post:

besides "bad" drivers, I also have a hard time with people who spin things funny, for example, using the term 'anti-abortion' instead of 'pro-life'. yet the other side of the aisle is 'pro-choice' never 'anti-life'. It just annoys me because it's not impartial, but puts an automatic judgement value on the terms. Obviously, being 'pro' something is viewed better than being 'anti' something.

Without the baggage that comes with the abortion debate, this could've started an interesting discussion about spin and the power of language. What's happened instead is that the forum has been hijacked by another discussion - surely more important, more emotional by far, but really not appropriate for a forum called "Are you a clod?".

I'm interested whether the intention of the original poster was to steer the conversation in this direction. Generally, when someone brings up abortion, that's what they're trying to do. Especially since the same poster chose to use this forum to put up a question about another often inflamatory subject, Christianity.

i think in varying ways the semantics question you find interesting has been explored in some of the abortion debate above, although it has been limited to terms attending the issue of abortion.

i don't know the intentions of the original poster. i could add some trigger-words to the shortlist though -- words and terms that have been co-opted by one social agenda or another and twisted out of any objectivity by advertising and/or pervasive spun repetition. for example: "liberal", "conservative", "family values," "patriotism", "socialist", "human rights", "forest fire", "welfare", "moral", "religious".

i'm sure there are thousands of others people could think of. what i don't know is if any of the ones i listed can be discussed without the linguistic discussion being hijacked into a debate of the specific issues and position suggested by the loaded words. :)

If you look at the very first post, this was the intent of the forum:

"Is there anything about which you are unsympathetic or uncaring? For example, an issue,�stereotype category of people or political agenda?"

I then gave the example of the bad drivers. People focused on the bad drivers instead of on that question. Looking back, I should have realized that giving a second example would produce the same effect. The goal was not a conversation on abortion, but a conversation about those things that you find yourself being close-minded about, though I'm sure the specific term "close-minded" isn't quite right either.

I am consciously trying to change how I view things, so that when presented with a hot topic, instead of judging, to try to understand the others. I'm hoping it makes me less critical, but the three "groups" I've already listed are groups that I have lots of difficulty with, and I was wondering what "groups" other fruheads have trouble with.

An unexpected benefit came from Lawrence who helped show that the terminology I thought of as slanted, was really just the most accurate. So even though the original intent got lost, I did learn something. Let me know if you would like further clarification.

EDIT: sheryls actually got it right when she posted about having a hard time with other coders.

I actually felt bad writing about the bad drivers instead of the question but it was a straight line and I had a punch line and i'm only human and the flesh is weak and ... OK I was a clod.

I really enjoy the way the forums veer off-topic.� While I don't think anyone clicking into the 'are you a clod' forum is expecting an abotion debate, I don't think it's an entirely bad thing.� If cloditude was the issue at hand, there could have been a poll with yes/no/Pete Best at the top.

Pet Peeves would have been a decent title, but then the Harry Potter people would have gone crazy.�

And once you scroll through the threads a little bit, the forum did turn to an interesting discussion about spin and the power of language.

i know! i love it when the forum topics get hijacked. like when i asked what my sister should name her baby girl and it turned into a debate about stealing cultures. \m/

OK, but the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not impartial either. They just each put a positive value judgment on themselves. If you take them literally, they are not mutually exclusive. I'm pro-life, but I'm also pro-choice. I believe that, instead of fighting to make abortion illegal, we should focus on creating programs that will make it possible for women to have and raise babies. But until we can do that, the choice has to be there.

I also dislike people who talk about things of which they know little to nothing. If you're going to form an opinion of something, IMO, you should research it, both sides, and then if you want to, you can choose a side with which to align yourself.

Unfortunately, I also dislike hypocrites, a group into which I must include myself. I don't always act the way�I should, the way I think others should as well, and I have a tendency to judge that I'm working on. I may dislike everything someone does, but I can still have respect for that person as being a fellow human.

You don't have to research it to form an opinion, but you should before you try to debate it.� Your belief exists whether you've analyzed it or not.

Best way to get a forum from zero to hostile in 60 seconds? Bring up abortion.

We don't all agree. We never will. It just gets mean.

This note brought to you by my "oh no, mommy and daddy are fighting again" conflict avoidance baggage. :)

so, um, kittens are cute!

I'm pretty sure that's a good way to get anywhere to hostile in 60 seconds.

Which is not to say that there can't be constructive debates, but once one person, on either side, accuses the other of being an idiot/immoral/etc, there's no going back.

I'd be all for a real debate, but that's not what's happening here.

Hostity starts when you say, "You're wrong," instead of, "I disagree."

Well, it's okay to say that when the person IS wrong.

;)

*ducks*

I disagree. ;-)

Well, you're wrong.

Jerk.

;D

*hostility*

;-p

And bringing up Israel can get people hostile in about 55.

It's ridiculous. Some people don't know how to be adults (me included, sometimes).

You aren't an adult, you are an embryo

I thought we were DEVO

i'm not an adult..... but i can write pretty well i suppose. and i don't get very hostile at most things. passionate, maybe, but not hostile. if you want to see hostile, you should see what i write on that site. (i keep mentioning it....sorry. but it's true. now that makes me hostile.)

20 years ago I would have thought I'd never quote Clint Eastwood without irony.

"Maybe I'm getting to the age when I'm starting to be senile or nostalgic or both, but people are so angry now," he adds. "You used to be able to disagree with people and still be friends. Now you hear these talk shows, and everyone who believes differently from you is a moron and an idiot - both on the right and the left."

lawrence and i were talking about this.

programmers read others' code and think all other programmers that dont do things the way they do it are complete idiots.

and sure, sometimes they are, and overcomplicate things completely, but most of the time they're just using a different method.

there's a guy I know who won't indent. at all.

ARGGGH.

my supervisor says he "can't read" my code because "There's too many spaces."

because he jams all his code together, never has any extra lines between chunks of logic, and indents only when he feels like it.

hehe.

At the place I work I'm the only one who unterstands my code That's why they sort of freaked out when I resigned. :D

Yay. Coder-clod represent.

this is why I love Eclipse and its code formatter. :)

visual studio also auto-formats but he OVERRIDES IT.

this guy won't use python because it's "impossible to maintain".

Well Cleese can be very difficult.

actually, the language is named after monty python

English is named after Monty Python?

Not English -- Python. It's a programming language.

-- Pauley

psst. i'm pretty sure gordon was being facetious. :P

Me fail English? That's unpossible.

With Gordon, one never knows. *glances about*

-- Pauley

"facetious?" Does that mean I have a pretty face?

ummm, yes *looks around*

Lkewise. This code I'm reading over from cornell... essentially FLAT code. Bah.

Eclipse is so nice. Ctrl-Shift-F.

In Comp. Sci. 101 they have us write code in a program that indents automatically. So I guess it's clod-proof. :)

Yay emacs.

hee.

eight megabytes and constantly swapping ;-D

vi rulez.

!!! vi yaye!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

emacs makes a computer slow.

in one of the organisations I was in at CMU, we'd make a habit of creating new emacs acronyms and writing them on the board at the beginning of each meeting. if I find the master list, I'll post more. :)

Speaking of religious debates....


//vi rules.

;-)

ok, something new to get upset about.

I get really annoyed at people who claim to be christian, who do all sorts of horrible things that go completely against christian teaching, and say that they are doing it in the name of God. And then people think that is representative of all christians. But it's not.

Being christian doesn't mean that people stop doing bad things. Christians mess up all the time, it doesn't make them less christian, it just means they are still human. Some christians get pompus and take on an "us and them" mentality that does nothing to draw others closer to God.

Agreed.... being of ANY persuasion does not automatically elevate someone in the eyes of whatever dieties might be around.

It's all about how you live your life... not about what you say you believe in.

I was raised in the faith, but have since drifted away.� People who claim to be Christian, yet act in ways contrary to their professed beliefs will be judged in their time.� If you believe in God, trust Him to make it right.� If you don't believe, what difference does it make who's name they're acting in?

Beliefs are subject to interpretation.� I was raised in an AoG (who have a reputation for being 'a little weird'), but I've also been to a First Baptist church (once saved, always saved?) and a Christian church (who take communion entirely too often for my comfort).� I'm not saying that any way is righter than any other way, but each PERSON in the�congregation has their own interpretation of its teachings.

seen on an lj:

"i didnt get anything for valentines day which was dissapointing, but my boyfriend was raised jehovas witness and does not celebrate any holidays."

..yet, he lives in sin with this girl.

so, some�people pick and choose which parts of their religions will dictate how they live their lives for those that are convenient for them :P

i'm as big of a clod as any, as an agnostic and having been raised jewish, i frequently cite judaism as my reason for not getting�any tatoos, yet, i dont even know if i believe in God anymore.

Meh. Take the best of both worlds! I am a Reform Jewish Athiest. I agree with the philosophies and teachings of my religion, just not the whole god thing.

I didn't want to make this a comment on anyone particular person's post so I am starting an independent thread. Yes the labels used to describe the positions on the right to get an abortion can be misleading. They are what are used though, they are shorthands for more complex ideas. Not only that but everyone in each camp has their own notions of what they are shorthand for. It is unproductive to attack the terminology and even more unproductive to attack the person using the terminology. This is not an issue that can be argued by bumper sticker and trying to do so just makes the situation worse.